i dont have any names to give anyone but about 100 or so years ago nobody existed, no jesus, no buddha etc, at least as far as trends in academic circles were concerned. this has since changed but i wouldnt be scared to bet that in certain circles these ideas still linger. so trike's statement probably isnt too far off depending on what youre reading.

สัพเพ สัตตา สุขีตา โหนตุ

the mountain may be heavy in and of itself, but if you're not trying to carry it it's not heavy to you- Ajaan Suwat

Actually, it would be worthwhile reading the Lotus Sutra itself. One of the interesting things about it is that it is a capitulation to the religious impulses, such as deification of the Buddha, that the Buddha, as we see in the Pali suttas, strongly rejected. It is a strongly sectarian work, defining itself as being the correct way to see things and all other Buddhist ways as being at best provisional.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

lol. So this whole drama boils down to this: the word "increasingly" is a dangerous word, and not having time to cite sources immediately is suspicious, at best. Or maybe not...let's deconstruct this thread a bit from a group process perspective.

The debate I referenced exists, even Tilt acknowledges it:

It is an historical debate

And I notably didn't offer an opinion about whether or not there was a historical Buddha until very late in the thread, though Tilt did:

Can we be 100% certain? No.

So then, the only thing left to attribute the heat/froth to is that I used the word "increasingly"...which is a minor subjective opinion, and that I didn't have time to cite sources immediately to support this one word.

Of course any first year student of group process communication following this thread would have a good laugh at the idea that it was the use of the word "increasingly" or a lack of time to cite sources that was the cause of all the froth...especially since my post that contained the triggering phrase arose as a result of my reply to this statement:

i read somewhere that Sanskrit scholars think very little of it as a text and whomever wrote it must not have been very proficient in the language.

...which also references "Sanskrit scholars" and attributes thoughts to them. Interestingly, this statement went unchallenged, and not a single request to cite sources was made. Odd...the only notable difference between the two is that one is in line with Theravada orthodoxy and the other is at odds with Theravada orthodoxy.

And then there were those statements out of the blue attributing words to me that I never said or even hinted at:

so your making claims that the buddha didn't exist based on what practice?

And the passive aggressive hints that by making the statement about what Sanskrit scholars think, I'm being "caustic" and creating a "bad atmosphere"...which is clearly projection:

I wonder if the caustic atmosphere I am perceiving here is my own mental construction... I hope it is. I don't like a bad atmosphere, particularly in a forum such as this.

And the strong suggestion that I'm not telling the truth:

easy cop out, if it really didn't matter to you you wouldn't say it! Back up your claim, or don't claim!!

...that required 3 exclamation points.

And the hasty assertion (45 minutes after I said I didn't have time to cite sources) that my "claim" was bogus and not to be taken seriously because I said that I was busy:

Well, so much for your claim. Nothing here to take seriously, then, it would seem.

Never mind that folks on this forum regularly say they are too busy to cite sources now - even the poster who generated the most heat about this has said this in the past...yet all of sudden in this one case, its unacceptable and even unbelievable, even with further explanation.

And the assertion that my being too busy to cite sources immediately meant that I "refused" to do so, and my so called "refusal" rendered my "claim" meaningless:

You are the one who made claim about what "Sanskrit" scholars say, and you are the one when asked, who refused to back it up, making your claim meaningless.

...and

Your refusal renders your claim meaningless

Note that "refused" is a loaded word, and that it colors and characterizes my saying "I'm too busy to cite sources now" in a very interesting and pointedly negative way - implying a forcefulness that clearly didn't exist. Its quite an unusual choice of a word given what its being applied to. Note that at this point I had said that I was too busy to cite sources only once, and only less than an hour previous.

...and then an hour later, more characterization of my statement that I was too busy to cite sources from the same poster:

It is cheap talk to make such claims and then being unwilling - unable - to back them up. You are correct, your claims are baseless.

Note that my so called "refusal" has now turned into "unwillingness" and "unable" to do so. And in less than two hours my reason for being busy is becoming suspicious:

All very nice, but a bit of a dodge, it seems.

Then a few more minutes after having the fires fanned in this way, its suggested that I have no respect for religious people:

Such people, they're a little beneath you.

...because obviously I'd never have made such a statement if I respected religious people, right?

And then there's the claim that I'm "egocentric" and that I don't care about the feelings of religious people:

Mostly I am bothered by your egocentric thinking. You state that you don't feel the existence of Buddha matters, soit shouldn't be such a matter for the rest of us.

To you such matters don't matter. To many of us, they do. Since you made an reference to a debate that might well cause dissension, then positioned yourself as a person both to busy and apathetic (in relation to said debate) to further elaborate on your reference, I would say you are at fault in the strife here seen

I am a religious Buddhist, and as such I do take the existence of Buddha for granted: on faith, if you like.Because this is how I approach the material I must admit that I was a little dismayed at your referenceto this debate.

Let's unpack these. Because I "made an reference to a debate" and then said I was too busy to cite sources I'm characterized as "apathetic" and somehow insensitive to and responsible for religious people's flaring passions. Note that just 3 hours have passed.

Then to make the drama even a bit frothier, out of left field comes this post suggesting that my statement is somehow aligned with a theory (unmentioned by me) having to do with a Sun Myth.

groan...head in hands...sigh...

But Tilt, all that "Buddha as Sun Myth " stuff is just so OLD.....and deeply deeply life suckingly tedious.

...and then another poster adds a quick reference to a conspiracy theory:

... those who look to zeitgist movies as the sharer of the truth on religion.

...further tarring my original statement with suspicion.

And then even more negative characterization of my statement that I was busy:

I simply asked for clarification and got turkeys.

And more drama about that incendiary word, this time highlighting the word in my statement in red for added emphasis

"Increasingly, scholars are unable to find any solid evidence

And then the coup de grace...I'm in a fantasy world because...I used the word "increasingly" without citing sources!

The fantasy world that includes the word "increasingly", and excludes any sort of citations

All this drama and fluff, not because the debate I referenced doesn't exist - all the main protagonists in this drama agree that the debate does exist. And not even specifically about whether he existed or not - again the main protagonists agree that there isn't 100% certainty. The earthshaking reasons for all the drama? That incendiary word "increasingly" that excluded sources backing up the legitimacy of that one word.

Pages of responses making a mountain out of a mole hill - one word, and reacting to my being too busy to cite sources for that one word. That first year student of group process communications would be guffawing real good after reading all those quotes from pages of drama. It should be obvious that this one word and my being busy aren't the issue at all - keeping the focus on these things are a clear smokescreen meant to distract attention away from what some religious folks see as the ultimate threat to orthodoxy. It would be very difficult to explain a religious perspective on the Dharma if there was no actual flesh and blood buddha. Even the monstrously overblown mythical buddha goes "poof" into thin air without that flesh and blood Buddha. Its unthinkable, and more than that...to many religious people its downright threatening to their psychic structure and identity. The idea must be killed and the messenger (even though in this case the messenger didn't even offer an opinion on it) must be discredited in order to feel psychologically safe again. As the quotes above show, any straw will be grasped at and no distortion technique left behind ("refused"!!) in order to restore solid inner ground. Mission accomplished...all focus was taken off of the threatening idea and deliberately displaced onto that one word and the somehow shocking idea that I was too busy to dig citations out of a huge, disorderly library and roomful of boxes of papers, journals, privately circulated research papers and manuscripts, etc... The focus was aggressively maintained on that one word and my "refusal" to post citations.

This isn't surprising...in fact, its the norm among hyper-religious people and vigilant defenders of orthodoxy - they tend to all use the exact same smokescreen tactics of focusing on trivial minutia, negative characterization, distortion, and negative association in order to avoid directly engaging any idea that threatens their psychic sense of order. This mercurial underhanded set of tactics used by the hyper religious and defenders of orthodoxy are very well known in group process and psychotherapy and are particularly common in electronic forums. Substitute "Buddha" with "Jesus" in my statement and the exact same techniques will be used by hyper-religious Christians and orthodox Christians. Any idea by any person that even slightly threatens the hyper-religious, orthodox perspective is discredited by any means available. These people really believe that they own Buddhism, and by extension, the Dharma itself. Not one of these defenders of orthodoxy even took note of this post (referring to the Lotus Sutra) that began this drama - and to which I responded with the phrase that lit the thread on fire:

i read somewhere that Sanskrit scholars think very little of it as a text and whomever wrote it must not have been very proficient in the language.

This post is an obvious slam at a non-Theravada tradition. No one requested the poster to cite sources for the thoughts he attributes to Sanskrit scholars. No mod stepped in with a reminder to respect all traditions and to cite sources. It went unnoticed. Diminishing and dismissing a central and much cared for sutra of another tradition and then attributing it to Sanskrit scholars without citing sources isn't a problem here apparently. But making reference to an existing academic debate rattles cages to the max and provokes multiple requests for sources, passion displays, negative characterization, distortions, and disbelief that I'm too busy to provides sources immediately, etc... also unnoticed. This is more than a little ironic coming from people who identify themselves by a "religion" based on awareness of the mind's reactivity. This may help to explain why increasingly in the West people are scraping off the "religion" and stressing the psychological component of Buddhism...all that knee-jerk reactivity and defensiveness is just a little too unsophisticated to have to deal with on a regular basis.

Visualize a post religious era.

Visualize a post religious Dharma.

Visualize a post-religious Theravada Buddhism.

Visualize practicing the Dharma without having to worry that if a leaf blows in the academic world, your whole inner world will crumble.

Visualize a Dharma freed from religious paranoia and literal irrational beliefs that must be defended at all cost.

Visualize a Dharma that's in harmony with and appreciates the benefits of modern scholarship and science...a living Dharma, and a living Theravada, not a crumbling fossil that depends on the institutionalization of irrationality at the expense of the clarity it supposedly exists to foster.

Visualize a mature path with which to refine the perception of the phenomenal world.

Okay, now let loose with the rationalizing away every word of what I said:

1. HE"S ANGRY!!!!!!

2. "Nice little rant"

3. Loads more of minutia nitpicking

4. "Do we have to listen to non-religious people here??? (because there is NO non-religious Buddhism!!!)

5. "Why is he allowed to say these things..this is a religious forum!!!"

6. The litany of sarcasm that always follows any non-religious view and any reference to the need for psychological self-awareness and group process in relationship to working with the Dharma.

7. "Well, this just proves it, doesn't it??"

8. "groan...so many words".

Have a ball! I'm leaving in a few minutes...I'll be alone in a remote cabin at the top of a mountain - silently contemplating the state of being no-thing, being every-thing. Not a drop of religion needed. And yes, I'll be reading Suttas...but not through religious eyes.

Last edited by pink_trike on Mon Dec 28, 2009 9:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

Vision is MindMind is EmptyEmptiness is Clear LightClear Light is UnionUnion is Great Bliss

One of the interesting things about it is that it is a capitulation to the religious impulses, such as deification of the Buddha,

This is incorrect and underscores your lack of understanding regarding the experiential process that is being invoked by this Sutra. This Sutra can't be understood from a Theravada perspective. It can only be understood from within the tradition as it is experientially known and integrated with, and the Sutra can only be understood by "entering it" through this experiential process. It isn't an intellectual process, and a simple intellectual reading of it doesn't convey its power because its power isn't directed at the intellect. It has nothing to do with deification and everything to do with a relational experience of the mythic Buddha. It needs to be "read" through a sophisticated, psychological, experiential "mythic" relationship - similar to the processes of classical shamanism.

Vision is MindMind is EmptyEmptiness is Clear LightClear Light is UnionUnion is Great Bliss

pink_trike wrote:lol. So this whole drama boils down to this: the word "increasingly" is a dangerous word, and not having time to cite sources immediately is suspicious, at best. Or maybe not...let's deconstruct this thread a bit from a group process perspective.

The debate I referenced exists, even Tilt acknowledges it:

Long msg and with all that packing for your retreat to do. Interestingly, not one name offered to support the “increasingly, scholars” comment. The debate exists, but it is rather old: 50-100 years. What is being debated now in any detail are the dates of the Buddha, not whether there was or was not a guy who was called the Buddha. Again, a lot of heat here from you, but no real fire, no names, nothing that would support these comments made by you early in this thread: Sanskrit scholars also think very little of the "The Buddha" as an actual person. . . . Increasingly, scholars are unable to find any solid evidence of it...evidence that should be available if he actually lived and wasn't just a conceptual devise. Not a thing; no names of scholars; just an unsubstantiated claims about what scholars are increasingly saying that remains unsubstantiated.

It is an historical debate

And I notably didn't offer an opinion about whether or not there was a historical Buddha until very late in the thread, though Tilt did:

Can we be 100% certain? No.

So then, the only thing left to attribute the heat/froth to is that I used the word "increasingly"...which is a minor subjective opinion, and that I didn't have time to cite sources immediately to support this one word.

My comment does not support your claim about what these unnamed scholars are increasingly doing.

Of course any first year student of group process communication following this thread would have a good laugh at the idea that it was the use of the word "increasingly" or a lack of time to cite sources that was the cause of all the froth...especially since my post that contained the triggering phrase arose as a result of my reply to this statement:

The only person going on about a lack of time is you. Nobody demanded that you cough up an answer immediately. It was only after a fair amount of hedging on your part that you complained that you were up to armpits in turkeys, having no time to deal with things. That would have been very simple to say when asked to back up your claim, but you did not do that.

And the hasty assertion (45 minutes after I said I didn't have time to cite sources) that my "claim" was bogus and not to be taken seriously because I said that I was busy:

Well, so much for your claim. Nothing here to take seriously, then, it would seem.

Your words: Too busy right now, and its irrelevant to me whether he lived or not. If it matters to you, do the research (outside of institutional Buddhism)., which reads as a very curt brush off, that you had no interest whatsoever in backing your claim now or any other time. Again, you could have easily said: “I am having a dinner party, I am up to my armpits in turkey and gravy, and when I have time I’ll be more than happy to cite sources and whatnot for you.”

And the assertion that my being too busy to cite sources immediately meant that I "refused" to do so, and my so called "refusal" rendered my "claim" meaningless:

No one asked you to cite your source immediately. You could have easily deferred to a later time (which you repeatedly did not do), which would have been fine, rather than the curt brush-off you gave us.

And then even more negative characterization of my statement that I was busy:

I simply asked for clarification and got turkeys.

You never, ever said, I am busy, but when I am free I’ll get you that information, which have colored the whole exchange very positively. Until the turkeys, all we got was the curt “I am busy, look it up yourselves.”

Pages of responses making a mountain out of a mole hill

, which you could have short circuited by simply saying that when you were free, you’ll be more than happy to get the information you claim exists.

This isn't surprising...in fact, its the norm among hyper-religious people and vigilant defenders of orthodoxy

Goodness.

It took you almost 2 hours to write this, but not a reference to be found. You could have gotten a lot done in a hour.

Have a good retreat, and then you will be all refreshed and ready to hit the (5000) books to provide a reference or two to back up your claim. I shall practice the utmost patience in waiting for your return.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

pink_trike wrote:the passive aggressive hints that by making the statement about what Sanskrit scholars think, I'm being "caustic" and creating a "bad atmosphere"...which is clearly projection:

I wonder if the caustic atmosphere I am perceiving here is my own mental construction... I hope it is. I don't like a bad atmosphere, particularly in a forum such as this.

(I'll only respond to this part of your post because it's the only part that involves a post of mine.)

Why do you think my post was directed specifically towards you? It wasn't . Also, when I say I hope the atmosphere is my "own mental construction" I mean a projection, as you rightly say. Later on in this thread it was confirmed that neither you nor tilt harbour ill-feeling, so the atmosphere I perceived must have been my own projection I'm glad this is the case.

Have a good retreat pink_trike, I've no doubt this thread will still be active when you return

One of the interesting things about it is that it is a capitulation to the religious impulses, such as deification of the Buddha,

This is incorrect and underscores your lack of understanding regarding the experiential process that is being invoked by this Sutra. This Sutra can't be understood from a Theravada perspective.

I did not read it the first two times from a Theravadin standpoint, but as a Mahayanist. It was the PrajnaParamita literature that kept me from chucking it all in. I was naive enough the first time I read it to assume that Buddhists would not write something like that.

It can only be understood from within the tradition as it is experientially known and integrated with, and the Sutra can only be understood by "entering it" through this experiential process.

And you know I did not? That is like saying if you truly understood, you would believe it, but since you do not believe it, you truly do not understand it. That is not a real argument.

It has nothing to do with deification and everything to do with a relational experience of the mythic Buddha. It needs to be "read" through a sophisticated, psychological, experiential "mythic" relationship - similar to the processes of classical shamanism.

The Lotus Sutra is a highly religious text that gives a docetist reading to the Buddha. It is problematic on so many levels, and the only appeal it has is religious, to the religious.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

Pink Trike, before posting this I have thought carefully about it, and whether to post it at all, but I think it would be a cop out not to. I simply do not know what draws you to a Theravada forum. As far as I am concerned you are most welcome to read to respond etc,. but I dont see what is in it for you. You clearly take a fundamentally different different view of that which is the raison d'etre of this forum from most Theravadin Buddhists, and you clearly need to convey that with every post. It is unlikely that you will modify the views of those who have worked through these issues and arrived at a different conclusion to yours, so why do you have this apparantly compulsive need to constantly be seen to disagree ? Even on this thread which asks why choose Theravada, you clearly feel the need to attempt to dominate it with your views concerning why you dont. Why ?

pink_trike wrote:the passive aggressive hints that by making the statement about what Sanskrit scholars think, I'm being "caustic" and creating a "bad atmosphere"...which is clearly projection:

I wonder if the caustic atmosphere I am perceiving here is my own mental construction... I hope it is. I don't like a bad atmosphere, particularly in a forum such as this.

(I'll only respond to this part of your post because it's the only part that involves a post of mine.)

Why do you think my post was directed specifically towards you? It wasn't . Also, when I say I hope the atmosphere is my "own mental construction" I mean a projection, as you rightly say. Later on in this thread it was confirmed that neither you nor tilt harbour ill-feeling, so the atmosphere I perceived must have been my own projection I'm glad this is the case.

Have a good retreat pink_trike, I've no doubt this thread will still be active when you return

I had the same impression as you, Mawkish. And while I have no idea about mr pink's and tilt respective mind-states, the manner in which the exchange was carried leaves something to be desired in my opinion. I've seen people with genuine interest in the Dhamma put off by this sort of thing before and it is very unfortunate when that happens. For the rest of us, it's no biggie. Some informative posts here and there...

pink_trike wrote:lol. So this whole drama boils down to this: the word "increasingly" is a dangerous word, and not having time to cite sources immediately is suspicious, at best. Or maybe not...let's deconstruct this thread a bit from a group process perspective.

The debate I referenced exists, even Tilt acknowledges it:

It is an historical debate

And I notably didn't offer an opinion about whether or not there was a historical Buddha until very late in the thread, though Tilt did:

you were arsked to support your claim which you are yet to do as far as I can see! it is a historical debate because it is over 100 years old, and from my knowledge essentially over, moved on from.

Can we be 100% certain? No.

So then, the only thing left to attribute the heat/froth to is that I used the word "increasingly"...which is a minor subjective opinion, and that I didn't have time to cite sources immediately to support this one word.

Of course any first year student of group process communication following this thread would have a good laugh at the idea that it was the use of the word "increasingly" or a lack of time to cite sources that was the cause of all the froth...especially since my post that contained the triggering phrase arose as a result of my reply to this statement:

you didn't just say you were to busy, you also said it you weren't interested in it and others who are interested in it can do the research, but for a busy person, you done a good job in continuing to reply to everything, then it was two birds in the oven, which was shortly elaborated on with a long post, now it is a retreat, I don't think anyone was expecting a reply for a couple of days, until after your retreat but busyness and no interest doesn't seam to stop you posting, even long posts!

i read somewhere that Sanskrit scholars think very little of it as a text and whomever wrote it must not have been very proficient in the language.

...which also references "Sanskrit scholars" and attributes thoughts to them. Interestingly, this statement went unchallenged, and not a single request to cite sources was made. Odd...the only notable difference between the two is that one is in line with Theravada orthodoxy and the other is at odds with Theravada orthodoxy.

Orthodoxy has nothing to do with it, accuracy does, the two are very different in that one is inline with what people know as recent research the other isn't.

And then there were those statements out of the blue attributing words to me that I never said or even hinted at:

so your making claims that the buddha didn't exist based on what practice?

And the passive aggressive hints that by making the statement about what Sanskrit scholars think, I'm being "caustic" and creating a "bad atmosphere"...which is clearly projection:

That was a question, note the ? and was a responce to this

pink_trike wrote: Manapa wrote: if it really didn't matter to you you wouldn't say it!Wrong. I could care less if there was ever an actual living "The Buddha". I'm interested in the practices and testing the teachings. Nothing more.

and look at yourself rather than analysing others!

I wonder if the caustic atmosphere I am perceiving here is my own mental construction... I hope it is. I don't like a bad atmosphere, particularly in a forum such as this.

And the strong suggestion that I'm not telling the truth:

easy cop out, if it really didn't matter to you you wouldn't say it! Back up your claim, or don't claim!!

...that required 3 exclamation points.

And the hasty assertion (45 minutes after I said I didn't have time to cite sources) that my "claim" was bogus and not to be taken seriously because I said that I was busy:

Well, so much for your claim. Nothing here to take seriously, then, it would seem.

that was 45 minuets of you not giving references while you kept posting while busy, see your quote above. if you had said busy right now but will give them later, that would be different, but I wish I knew your secret of being on the computer and cooking a large meal.

Never mind that folks on this forum regularly say they are too busy to cite sources now - even the poster who generated the most heat about this has said this in the past...yet all of sudden in this one case, its unacceptable and even unbelievable, even with further explanation.

And the assertion that my being too busy to cite sources immediately meant that I "refused" to do so, and my so called "refusal" rendered my "claim" meaningless:

You are the one who made claim about what "Sanskrit" scholars say, and you are the one when asked, who refused to back it up, making your claim meaningless.

...and

Your refusal renders your claim meaningless

Note that "refused" is a loaded word, and that it colors and characterizes my saying "I'm too busy to cite sources now" in a very interesting and pointedly negative way - implying a forcefulness that clearly didn't exist. Its quite an unusual choice of a word given what its being applied to. Note that at this point I had said that I was too busy to cite sources only once, and only less than an hour previous.

...and then an hour later, more characterization of my statement that I was too busy to cite sources from the same poster:

It is cheap talk to make such claims and then being unwilling - unable - to back them up. You are correct, your claims are baseless.

Note that my so called "refusal" has now turned into "unwillingness" and "unable" to do so. And in less than two hours my reason for being busy is becoming suspicious:

All very nice, but a bit of a dodge, it seems.

for a busy person you sure can post, When I am busy I am busy, i.e., doing other things, not online posting that I am busy.my initial thats a cop-out statement which was the first was based not on your business but on this

Too busy right now, and its irrelevant to me whether he lived or not. If it matters to you, do the research (outside of institutional Buddhism).

Then a few more minutes after having the fires fanned in this way, its suggested that I have no respect for religious people:

Such people, they're a little beneath you.

...because obviously I'd never have made such a statement if I respected religious people, right?

where is this quote from so I can see the context?

...and then another poster adds a quick reference to a conspiracy theory:

... those who look to zeitgist movies as the sharer of the truth on religion.

...further tarring my original statement with suspicion.

was that to you? was the context of me saying that what you had said or what another responder

PeterB wrote:But Tilt, all that "Buddha as Sun Myth " stuff is just so OLD.....and deeply deeply life suckingly tedious.

and if you read the post you can see I am not refering to what you said.

Manapa wrote:Hi PeterI believe that was a much later add on from the hindus who claimed he was an avatara of Vishnu, or which ever god it is, then others interpreted these sun-god ideas onto that! I have heard it claimed that the Buddha was born on the winter solstice, a claim I have only heard from those who look to zeitgist movies as the sharer of the truth on religion.

in other words the "sun-myth stuff" the adding of myths to the Buddha not present in the older texts.

And then even more negative characterization of my statement that I was busy:

I simply asked for clarification and got turkeys.

And more drama about that incendiary word, this time highlighting the word in my statement in red for added emphasis

"Increasingly, scholars are unable to find any solid evidence

And then the coup de grace...I'm in a fantasy world because...I used the word "increasingly" without citing sources!

The fantasy world that includes the word "increasingly", and excludes any sort of citations

All this drama and fluff, not because the debate I referenced doesn't exist - all the main protagonists in this drama agree that the debate does exist. And not even specifically about whether he existed or not - again the main protagonists agree that there isn't 100% certainty. The earthshaking reasons for all the drama? That incendiary word "increasingly" that excluded sources backing up the legitimacy of that one word.

different posters use different methods

This isn't surprising...in fact, its the norm among hyper-religious people and vigilant defenders of orthodoxy

You do know you are on a Theravada Forum which is very orthodox as tradition, I have been wondering the same as Peter though.

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

Dan74 wrote:I had the same impression as you, Mawkish. And while I have no idea about mr pink's and tilt respective mind-states, the manner in which the exchange was carried leaves something to be desired in my opinion. I've seen people with genuine interest in the Dhamma put off by this sort of thing before and it is very unfortunate when that happens. For the rest of us, it's no biggie. Some informative posts here and there...

_/|\_

I know I can come accross as angry online when I am not, I think it is often better to give the benefit of the doubt rather than assume the worst!

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

Dan74 wrote:I had the same impression as you, Mawkish. And while I have no idea about mr pink's and tilt respective mind-states, the manner in which the exchange was carried leaves something to be desired in my opinion. I've seen people with genuine interest in the Dhamma put off by this sort of thing before and it is very unfortunate when that happens. For the rest of us, it's no biggie. Some informative posts here and there...

_/|\_

I know I can come accross as angry online when I am not, I think it is often better to give the benefit of the doubt rather than assume the worst!

Apologies for meta-discussion!

I accept that and what tilt and pink say above. To me it's not just a question of intention but etiquette. It's good to make extra effort to be courteous and respectful in how we communicate online. Tilt and Pink may be old buddies for all I know and robust exchanges may be par of the course for them, but for people new to the forum especially, it's good to be mindful of how we communicate. Just how I see things. Plenty of conflict in the world already.

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

alan wrote:What I'd really like to know is, are there specific Mahayana concepts that anyone here rejected? If so, why?Web searches have resulted in "there isn't really a big difference" articles, but surely there must be. Thanks!

alan wrote:What I'd really like to know is, are there specific Mahayana concepts that anyone here rejected? If so, why?Web searches have resulted in "there isn't really a big difference" articles, but surely there must be. Thanks!

alan wrote:What I'd really like to know is, are there specific Mahayana concepts that anyone here rejected? If so, why?Web searches have resulted in "there isn't really a big difference" articles, but surely there must be. Thanks!

Yes, I reject self flagellation.chownah

Hi Chownah I am not sure what you mean here? I have not heard of this practice in Mahayana.

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

pink_trike wrote:lol. So this whole drama boils down to this: the word "increasingly" is a dangerous word, and not having time to cite sources immediately is suspicious, at best. Or maybe not...let's deconstruct this thread a bit from a group process perspective.

You appear to have great difficulty in keeping people and conversations separate. Not only do I not want to be lumped in with you and your opinions, I don't want to be lumped in with anyone else here and their opinions. My posts do not necessarily reflect the opinions of others, and others' posts do not necessarily reflect my opinions. Do not conflate the two.

alan wrote:What I'd really like to know is, are there specific Mahayana concepts that anyone here rejected? If so, why?Web searches have resulted in "there isn't really a big difference" articles, but surely there must be. Thanks!

Alan, in answer to your question, and in a desperately feeble attempt to bring or steer the topic back to your original post -

I didn't so much reject Mahayana concepts, as simply chose to not consider them as part of my practice.What I do, that is associated predominantly with Mahayana, is use a mala and chant several different mantras, and consider Tara to be a companion. Just like I choose to take metaphorical tea with Yama, too, as a matter of habit.....

But I like the clear, unambiguous succinct and no-nonsense approach of Theravada, though as many of those who know me well, will tell you, it took me a while to pin my Theravada colours to the Buddhist mast.....

I am not a studious and constant pupil.Much of what Theravada brings me, is beyond my ken, and I read, try to digest, become confused and leave it aside, very much in this kind of mental mode....

I'm a simple-minded individual, so whilst I do actually take more notice than many might assume, I'm very happy to devote my time to concentrating on the Four, Eight and Five (occasionally Eight, when the occasion so warrants....)I don't feel wrong, or.... traitorous.... for adopting certain Mahayana practices.if it all helps, why knock it?